I never made it to see Saakashvili in person at Gaston Hall at Georgetown University (had to drive my daughter to school at last minute). Fortunately Georgetown webcast the event (a great idea, and to their credit). Only the audio was initially available and from his voice it really sounded like he was up all night partying! I think he simply had a head cold. When the video came through he looked older but well turned out. A few observations.
I’ve only seen Saakashvili speak a few times, and yet I heard the same speech he gave years ago. Its the story about the police which features the dramatic “We fired them” and the subsequent turnaround. Its a good story but its old, and its repetition may indicate that he and his government are stuck spinning their foundational mythologies. Alternatively, perhaps he knows from past experience that this story really works well in Washington DC (and better to stick to pre-Aug 2008 stories than remind folks about the circumstances of that war’s start). “My whole cabinet is younger than I” may be meant as demonstration of continuation of the libertarian Jacobin elan, but it too is a gesture that seems stuck in the past. Isn’t it good to have some mature minds around? The fascinating boy-man quality of Saakashvili’s personality — on full view in his response to Obama at the White House — deserves some scrutiny.
Saakashvili retains his fondness for GOP (i.e. US Republican Party) soundbites. Interestingly the subterranean sadomasochistic pleasure of the “we fired them all” story resonates with Romney’s recent “I like firing people.” What struck me, however, was his articulation of the current GOP storyline about how others (read Obama) are saying “America is finished” and American must “apologize” for its past behavior (read, the Iraq war and torture). [Obama, of course, says the opposite but this is an enduring self-construct; the SOTU deliberately countered this again but I expect the myth to remain]. This sets up a defiant ripost that doubles down on American exceptionalism and pride. Here Senator Marco Rubio as a meritorious carrier of these transcendent truths was mentioned (significant I think because he’s widely seen as a possible Romney running mate). The trouble with this structure of feeling for Saakashvili is that (i) many political heads in DC will instantly see this as GOP code and this identifies him further in US partisan political terms in ways that do not help his country and (ii) simple stories reflect badly on their tellers. In his defense, he may be articulating what he really thinks or what he really thinks works.
It is probably expecting too much from such a forum for someone to actually ask a challenging question. Georgetown President described his remarks as “inspiring” and “tough minded” or words to that effect. Generous. The Dean buried the one question that needed to be asked — are you going to ‘pull a Putin’? — inside a soft question about the European Union, which allowed him to justify the new constitution as Georgia Europeanizing itself.
The question from the Russian language VOA broadcaster elicited Saakashvili’s most polemical geopolitical rhetoric. Again the default mode is a pleasurable ‘structure of feeling’ of righteous indignation. “Russia occupies 20 percent of our country.” This beclouds all complexity, acknowledgement of Georgia’s difficult past relations with these regions, and any fidelity to empirics on the ground. Thus, we get the line that in South Ossetia there are only 7,000 residents but 20,000 Russian troops. Abkhazia’s beaches are deserted except for tank crews sunning themselves. In a situation where virtually the whole world supports Georgia’s position on the separatist territories, this type of rhetoric (with empirical claims about South Ossetia and Abkhazia that are not credible) runs the risk of damaging not furthering one’s cause. It would seem to be an unnecessary ‘own goal.’
The story at the conclusion of Saakashvili defiantly taking off in his Cessna, piloting it himself, even though he knows that Russian radar (and presumably anti-aircraft missiles) have locked onto his plane, seemed to work well with the audience to judge by the intensity of applause at the end. Maybe President Saakashvili did indeed move the audience and do a good job for his country, leaving everyone with the favorite image of little Georgia courageously defying the bullying bear to the north (and within its own territory). But do heroic defiance stories really work, especially with hardheaded political analysts and security planners?
Georgia exploded as an issue in the last Presidential election in August 2008. I’ve little doubt that President Saakashvili would like it to retain power as a ‘symbolic test’ of US commitment to its expansive ideals (some in the GOP may think of it as a wedge issue). My sense, however, is that Saakashvili’s stories, or those of other leaders vying for attention, do not resonate in US geopolitical culture like before. Why? Because they are out of synch with the post-Iraq, indebted, and wanna be post-Afghanistan ethos of our day. This isn’t ‘declinism’ so much as a reversion to American skepticism and self-concern in turbulent uncertain times. ‘Enough with funding experiments/states/favorites abroad; lets re-focus at home’ is how one might summarize the mood. This isn’t necessarily a good thing — we need proactive US engagement on Syria, Iraq, Burma and Egypt now especially — but it is a fact of life all US politicians have to confront.
Information From: Toal.org
No comments:
Post a Comment